Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

North Carolina approves Duke Energy’s controversial green tariff plan

News Feed
Wednesday, August 14, 2024

A question of ​‘regulatory surplus’ For large customers with 100% clean energy commitments, a green tariff is a necessity in North Carolina, where Duke has a monopoly and cities, data centers, and the like can’t buy clean energy directly from solar farms. In theory, a green tariff allows a company such as Google or Amazon to spur a new supply of clean energy equal to its electric demand, with Duke acting as an administrative go-between. An earlier iteration of Green Source Advantage more or less did just that. But the accounting got more complicated in 2021, when a bipartisan state law required Duke to cut its carbon pollution by at least 95% by 2050. If the company is legally required to build scores of solar farms anyway, can a large customer legitimately claim its sponsorship of one project makes a difference? This question of ​“regulatory surplus” sparked a flurry of arguments and counterarguments before the commission for some 18 months. Duke initially claimed such ​“additionality” was neither feasible nor necessary, and some businesses said chipping in to support the clean energy transition was good enough for them. More than a dozen local chambers of commerce and potential customers wrote to regulators in support of the original program. But Google, the U.S. Department of Defense, and other large customers joined clean energy advocates to flag the problem of regulatory surplus, as did the Center for Resource Solutions, the nonprofit that certifies voluntary renewable energy purchase programs. Duke University, which has no connection to the utility, said it wouldn’t participate in the tariff. ‘A small step in the right direction’  The debate, along with prodding from commissioners, prompted Duke Energy to add a ​“resource acceleration option” to its proposal. The alternative allows large customers to advance about 150 megawatts of solar energy each year by sponsoring projects not selected in the company’s annual competitive bidding process. Every two years, Duke gets retroactive credit for this ​“extra” solar as part of its compliance with the 2021 law.Clean energy advocates believe the new option is a ​“small step in the right direction.” But they note it accounts for 1 gigawatt of clean energy over 10 years, a fifth of the entire program. Customers who lay claim to the remaining 4 gigawatts would not be impacting the state’s transition to clean electricity, they say. ​“If you’re the customer of a business who claims to support our state’s clean energy transition by participating in the program, you’re going to expect that business to be making a difference — not just subsidizing what Duke was going to do anyway,” said Nick Jimenez, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. The Carolinas Clean Energy Business Alliance, a group of clean energy suppliers, also criticized the acceleration option. And though the Carolina Utility Customers Association, another group of large industrial customers, didn’t oppose the amended proposed tariff, it registered skepticism. “[Our] members have little interest in the Resource Acceleration Option,” the group said in a letter to regulators, ​“which would deliver electricity at a premium cost without providing the benefit of regulatory surplus-based environmental attributes that would be useful in meeting corporate environmental, social, and governance goals.” Cause for hope?  While advocates see little good in the commission’s approval of the Green Source Advantage Choice program, they still have some faint cause for hope. One is the so-called Clean Transition Tariff, which Duke could propose later this year. An outgrowth of a May agreement between the utility and Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Nucor, that program could allow participating customers to spur new projects, such as solar–battery storage combos or small nuclear energy, that provide carbon-free electricity around the clock. ​“This is not within the order,” said Jimenez, but the May memorandum of understanding, ​“is the big opportunity for something better.” Duke says the Clean Transition Tariff would be another voluntary option for customers, not a replacement for the one just greenlighted. ​“We see the approval of Green Source Advantage Choice as a first step,” the company’s Stewart said, ​“enabling us to move forward with new tariffs like the Clean Transition Tariff.” Maggie Shober, research director at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, agrees the memorandum of understanding is cause for some optimism. But she also notes that it’s only ​“an agreement to talk about something. It could be an opportunity,” she said, ​“or it could be a missed opportunity. “ And no matter what, the Clean Transition Tariff won’t cater to municipalities and other midsize customers with climate commitments. If these customers decline to pursue Green Source Advantage Choice, their only option is to wait for Duke to adjust. Commissioner Jeffrey A. Hughes pointed to that possibility in a concurring opinion. ​“Once the program offerings are launched, it will quickly become clear whether the program is as attractive as Duke asserts,” Hughes wrote. ​“If concerns continue and interest is modest from the outset, it is my hope that Duke will work quickly on new programs that will have a greater impact.”

This story was first published by Energy News Network . North Carolina regulators have approved a controversial green tariff proposal from Duke Energy, rejecting protests from critics who argue it won’t bolster the company’s transition to zero-carbon electricity. Originally designed as a way for large electric…

A question of ​‘regulatory surplus’

For large customers with 100% clean energy commitments, a green tariff is a necessity in North Carolina, where Duke has a monopoly and cities, data centers, and the like can’t buy clean energy directly from solar farms.

In theory, a green tariff allows a company such as Google or Amazon to spur a new supply of clean energy equal to its electric demand, with Duke acting as an administrative go-between. An earlier iteration of Green Source Advantage more or less did just that.

But the accounting got more complicated in 2021, when a bipartisan state law required Duke to cut its carbon pollution by at least 95% by 2050. If the company is legally required to build scores of solar farms anyway, can a large customer legitimately claim its sponsorship of one project makes a difference?

This question of ​“regulatory surplus” sparked a flurry of arguments and counterarguments before the commission for some 18 months. Duke initially claimed such ​“additionality” was neither feasible nor necessary, and some businesses said chipping in to support the clean energy transition was good enough for them. More than a dozen local chambers of commerce and potential customers wrote to regulators in support of the original program.

But Google, the U.S. Department of Defense, and other large customers joined clean energy advocates to flag the problem of regulatory surplus, as did the Center for Resource Solutions, the nonprofit that certifies voluntary renewable energy purchase programs. Duke University, which has no connection to the utility, said it wouldn’t participate in the tariff.

‘A small step in the right direction’ 

The debate, along with prodding from commissioners, prompted Duke Energy to add a ​“resource acceleration option” to its proposal. The alternative allows large customers to advance about 150 megawatts of solar energy each year by sponsoring projects not selected in the company’s annual competitive bidding process. Every two years, Duke gets retroactive credit for this ​“extra” solar as part of its compliance with the 2021 law.

Clean energy advocates believe the new option is a ​“small step in the right direction.” But they note it accounts for 1 gigawatt of clean energy over 10 years, a fifth of the entire program. Customers who lay claim to the remaining 4 gigawatts would not be impacting the state’s transition to clean electricity, they say.

​“If you’re the customer of a business who claims to support our state’s clean energy transition by participating in the program, you’re going to expect that business to be making a difference — not just subsidizing what Duke was going to do anyway,” said Nick Jimenez, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center.

The Carolinas Clean Energy Business Alliance, a group of clean energy suppliers, also criticized the acceleration option. And though the Carolina Utility Customers Association, another group of large industrial customers, didn’t oppose the amended proposed tariff, it registered skepticism.

“[Our] members have little interest in the Resource Acceleration Option,” the group said in a letter to regulators, ​“which would deliver electricity at a premium cost without providing the benefit of regulatory surplus-based environmental attributes that would be useful in meeting corporate environmental, social, and governance goals.”

Cause for hope? 

While advocates see little good in the commission’s approval of the Green Source Advantage Choice program, they still have some faint cause for hope.

One is the so-called Clean Transition Tariff, which Duke could propose later this year. An outgrowth of a May agreement between the utility and Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Nucor, that program could allow participating customers to spur new projects, such as solar–battery storage combos or small nuclear energy, that provide carbon-free electricity around the clock.

​“This is not within the order,” said Jimenez, but the May memorandum of understanding, ​“is the big opportunity for something better.”

Duke says the Clean Transition Tariff would be another voluntary option for customers, not a replacement for the one just greenlighted. ​“We see the approval of Green Source Advantage Choice as a first step,” the company’s Stewart said, ​“enabling us to move forward with new tariffs like the Clean Transition Tariff.”

Maggie Shober, research director at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, agrees the memorandum of understanding is cause for some optimism. But she also notes that it’s only ​“an agreement to talk about something. It could be an opportunity,” she said, ​“or it could be a missed opportunity. “

And no matter what, the Clean Transition Tariff won’t cater to municipalities and other midsize customers with climate commitments. If these customers decline to pursue Green Source Advantage Choice, their only option is to wait for Duke to adjust.

Commissioner Jeffrey A. Hughes pointed to that possibility in a concurring opinion.

​“Once the program offerings are launched, it will quickly become clear whether the program is as attractive as Duke asserts,” Hughes wrote. ​“If concerns continue and interest is modest from the outset, it is my hope that Duke will work quickly on new programs that will have a greater impact.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

‘Everything is worse since Drax came here’: US residents say wood-pellet plant harming their town

Residents of Gloster, Mississippi, are suing plant that exports wood pellets to UK and Europe. Company says it is reducing emissionsWhen Helen Reed first learned about the bioenergy mill opening in her hometown of Gloster, Mississippi, the word was it would bring jobs and economic opportunities. It was only later that she learned that activity came with a cost: the Amite Bioenergy mill, opened in 2014 by British energy giant Drax, emits large – and sometimes illegal – quantities of air pollutants, including methanol, acrolein and formaldehyde, which are linked to cancers and other serious illnesses.“When I go out, I can’t hardly catch my breath,” Reed said. “Everything is worse since Drax came here.” Continue reading...

When Helen Reed first learned about the bioenergy mill opening in her hometown of Gloster, Mississippi, the word was it would bring jobs and economic opportunities. It was only later that she learned that activity came with a cost: the Amite Bioenergy mill, opened in 2014 by British energy giant Drax, emits large – and sometimes illegal – quantities of air pollutants, including methanol, acrolein and formaldehyde, which are linked to cancers and other serious illnesses.“When I go out, I can’t hardly catch my breath,” Reed said. “Everything is worse since Drax came here.”The facility churns out billions of wood pellets each year to meet surging overseas demand for “sustainable biomass”, a renewable alternative to coal.The Amite BioEnergy wood pellet production facility in Gloster. Photograph: Kathleen Flynn/For the GuardianNow, Gloster residents are suing Drax, alleging that the company unlawfully exposed people to “massive amounts of toxic pollutants”, according to the October filing.Drax, one of the world’s biggest players in the booming biomass industry, has turned the UK’s largest coal power station, a mile-wide complex in rural Yorkshire, into what is essentially an immense wood stove fueled with Mississippi and Louisiana pine. The company, whose Yorkshire plant is among the UK’s largest single carbon emitters, has faced scrutiny and lawsuits in the UK for pollution and workplace safety violations.Its operations in the US are also beginning to draw legal challenges. “This case is about holding a multi-billion-dollar foreign corporation accountable for poisoning a small Mississippi community,” said Letitia Johnson, an attorney representing the group, in a statement.When the Gloster plant opened, many in the low-income, majority-Black town of 850 people were optimistic that it would revitalize the local economy. But some residents say it has brought little more than noise, dust and toxic air.Michelli Martin, a Drax spokesperson, said the company is making strides to reduce pollution.“The safety of our people and the communities in which we operate is our priority, and we take our environmental responsibilities very seriously,” Martin said. “As a company dedicated to sustainable energy production, high standards of safety and environmental compliance are always our top priority.”Drax’s Gloster plant is one of 30 large pellet mills – including five belonging to Drax – in the US south. Inside these plants, stacks of logs are stripped of bark, shredded, cooked in 1,000-degree tumble dryers, pulverized in hammermills, and pressed into pellets destined mostly for export. Photograph: Kathleen Flynn/The GuardianPellet exports from the US have quintupled, growing from 2 million tons in 2012 to about 10.5 million tons in 2023, according to the US Industrial Pellet Association. Most pellets are sent to the UK and Europe, where they are classified as a renewable energy source on par with solar and wind, making wood-burning eligible for massive subsidies, low-interest loans and other government incentives.But researchers say the drying, crushing and cooling processes at the mills emit air pollution that could be contributing to nearby residents’ health problems.“Air pollution is magnitudes higher in Gloster, especially with VOCs [volatile organic compounds],” said Erica Walker, a Brown University epidemiologist. She and a team of researchers set up air pollution monitors in the town and found clouds of VOCs concentrated around the mill and neighboring residential areas.“Literally, my first question when I visited Gloster was: ‘Who zoned this?’” she said of the mill, which abuts a mobile home park and is less than a mile from a children’s day care center. “It’s right out in the open. No acoustical barriers, no buffer of trees. It was shocking to see it operating right in the middle of the community.” Photograph: Kathleen Flynn/For the GuardianGloster mayor Jerry Norwood said small, remote mill towns like his can’t thrive without plants like Drax’s. “All of these small towns, we have nothing,” he said. “If big business don’t commit the big dollars, we don’t have the tax base. We have to have that for community growth.”Norwood did not respond to emailed questions about pollution or residents’ lawsuits against Drax, but in an October op-ed published before the suit was filed he wrote: “Those who oppose Drax and some in the media have made our town out to be some sort of smog-filled nightmare, but that is simply false. Along with my friends and neighbors who live, work and play in Gloster, I can assure you we breathe clean air.”Gloster residents, once hopeful that the mill would reverse the town’s decline – it has lost more than 20% of its population since 2000 – say it is only hastening it. Many say their experience should come as a warning to other communities.Longtime resident Carmella Wren-Causey, a plaintiff in the lawsuit against Drax, said she started using an oxygen tank in 2020 after developing breathing problems she blames on the mill. “We’re being poisoned slowly, right before our eyes,” she said through tears.“God gave me breath when he gave me life,” she said. “Drax took it away.”Carmella Wren-Causey in her car. Photograph: Kathleen Flynn/The GuardianA history of violationsDrax, one of the world’s largest pellet companies, has racked up nearly $6m in violations for its operations in Mississippi and Louisiana over the past four years.In 2020, the Mississippi department of environmental quality, following years of prodding from environmental groups, found the company’s Gloster mill was emitting an average of 796 tons of VOCs per year – more than three times the limit allowed under the mill’s permit – and fined the company $2.5m.Louisiana officials, too, found that Drax had been breaking several of its air quality rules, and in 2022 reached a settlement in which Drax paid $3.2m but admitted no wrongdoing.The Drax power station in North Yorkshire. Photograph: Gary Calton/The ObserverThe settlement was the largest in more than a decade for Louisiana environmental officials, but it appears to be the extent of any serious efforts to rein in Drax’s pollution in Louisiana, said Patrick Anderson, an attorney who, when working with the Environmental Integrity Project, reviewed Drax’s pollution history in Mississippi and Louisiana.The Louisiana department of environmental quality did not respond to requests for comment.Matt White, vice-president of Drax’s North American operations, said that Drax has since made several upgrades and changes to reduce emissions, including installing a thermal oxidizer at the Gloster mill that they say essentially burns away VOCs.“We take our environmental responsibilities and compliance extremely seriously,” White said. “Compliance is at the foundation of everything we do, and we have invested a lot of hours and resources with the goal of continuously improving our operations.”People support a Drax protester who was detained by UK police in 2024. Photograph: Gary Calton/The ObserverDespite the upgrades and repeated promises to do better, Drax continued to incur fines for pollution violations. In late 2024, Drax agreed to pay $225,000 for exceeding the Gloster mill’s limits for hazardous air pollutants, particularly for methanol, which were recorded at nearly double the permitted threshold, according to the MDEQ.In April 2025, amid complaints from residents, the MDEQ denied Drax permission to increase its emissions. Its reversal of that decision in October – allowing Drax’s Gloster mill to become a “major source” of hazardous air pollutants – triggered the lawsuit against the company.A representative from the MDEQ declined to comment on the lawsuit, but said: “MDEQ takes seriously its obligations to protect human health and the environment.”The $6m in penalties over the past four years are a drop in the bucket for Drax, Anderson said. The company raked in $1.4bn in profits in 2024 and about 1.3bn in 2023, according to Drax’s adjusted earnings reports.“Drax is so profitable and so subsidized that it powers through all of this,” Anderson said. “The fines don’t hurt their bottom line.”Researchers have found several signs that these pollutants are having real consequences.The air monitors that Walker and her team installed detected unexpected spikes in VOCs during the night, something that lines up with residents’ complaints of foul odors and difficulty breathing after dark.“At night, it’s always worse,” Gloster resident Robert Weatherspoon said. “It smells disgusting.”Robert Weatherspoon once jogged daily but now struggles to breathe. Photograph: Kathleen Flynn/The GuardianThis could indicate pollution “dumping” during certain hours, Walker said.Drax disputed the dumping claim. “Any suggestion that we manipulate our operations to avoid complaints or detection is completely false,” Martin said.Walker’s team also found that the closer children lived to the mill, the heavier they were. “It fits with some of the things we heard at community meetings,” Walker said. “You don’t want your kids playing outside because the air’s polluted. If they’re staying inside, how are they getting physical activity?”It’s not just the hazardous chemicals that are keeping residents up at night.Glen Henderson, a resident of Urania, Louisiana, whose Drax mill opened in 2017, described near-constant clanging and banging from the mill. Lights glow over the tops of an ever-thinning band of trees between his home and the mill, nearly a mile away, and at daybreak, a powdery substance often coats his truck.“This noise and dust – what are the long-term effects of all that?” he asked.In 2024, Walker and a team of researchers from the University of Mississippi and Drexel University published a study based on a noise exposure assessment in Gloster.Children walk home after being dropped off by their school bus in Gloster. Photograph: Kathleen Flynn/For the GuardianThey found the mill’s operations and truck traffic sometimes topped 70 decibels, whereas the comparably sized Mississippi town of Mendenhall, which does not have a pellet mill, was typically 10 decibels quieter.“That’s an enormous difference,” Walker said. “It’s like turning a faucet into Niagara Falls.”Martin said Drax follows federal noise abatement guidelines and insulates buildings to mitigate sound levels.“Pellet mills generate noise as part of the manufacturing process from the operation of equipment,” Martin said. “The noise from facility operation is consistent with the surrounding industrial plants and does not contribute to significant impacts above existing background noise.”A growing body of research has linked chronic noise exposure to high blood pressure, heart attacks, anxiety and depression.“Noise disrupts your sleep, disrupts your mood, and sets off a stress response that’s like your ‘fight or flight’ response, which makes your body ready to fight a threat or run from it,” Walker said. “The constant stimulation of that response can cause all kinds of health problems.”Community leader Krystal Martin shows a photo of the Gloster facility. Photograph: Kathleen Flynn/The GuardianThe company recently expanded a mill in Alabama, established a North American headquarters in Monroe, Louisiana and opened an office in Houston to lead its carbon capture and sequestration enterprises.Over the past six years, the Urania mill alone has produced enough pellets to fill the New Orleans Superdome nearly twice.Yet several residents in Gloster and Urania said that output has not revitalized their economies. Each of the three large Drax mills in Louisiana and Mississippi employs between 70 and 80 people, a fraction of the workforce supported by many past mills. In Gloster, only 15% of Drax’s employees reside in the community, according to the company. Photograph: Kathleen Flynn/For the GuardianMabel Williams, a lifelong resident of Gloster, never wanted a Drax job, but she had high hopes that the mill would employ enough people to breathe life back into downtown. Walking along a largely vacant Main Street, her memories crowded every empty lot and darkened window.“There were people everywhere,” said Williams, 87, who spent decades cleaning the homes of the white residents who have mostly moved away. “This was a clothing store and that was a jewelry store owned by a German man. And over there, my mamma worked at the cafe.” Across the train tracks was the Black business district, with four barbershops, restaurants and music venues, she said. “I get excited when I think about what Gloster had,” she said.Williams still has faith that Gloster is capable of a revival, but she no longer believes it will be thanks to Drax.“Drax is making so much money,” she said. “They’ve got to spend that money some kind of way, but they’re not spending it here.”A longer version of this story is forthcoming from Verite News

Energy
Business
Government

California’s plan to boost plug-in heat pumps and induction stoves

LED light bulbs and TVs. Front-loading washing machines. Energy-lean refrigerators. All were once nascent technologies that needed a push to become mainstream. Now, California is trying to add über-efficient plug-in heat pumps and battery-equipped induction stoves to that list. It’s a tall order; today these…

LED light bulbs and TVs. Front-loading washing machines. Energy-lean refrigerators. All were once nascent technologies that needed a push to become mainstream. It’s a tall order; today these innovative products cost thousands of dollars and aren’t widely available in stores, unlike their more polluting, less efficient counterparts that burn fossil fuels or use electric-resistance coils to generate heat. But late last month, the California Public Utilities Commission signed off on a plan to spend $115 million over the next six years to develop and drive demand for the fossil-fuel-free equipment — a first-of-its-kind investment for the state. These appliances, which plug into standard 120-volt wall outlets, don’t need professional installers or the expensive electrical upgrades sometimes required for conventional whole-home heat pumps or 240-volt induction stoves. That ease of installation makes them crucial tools in California’s quest to decarbonize its economy by 2045. “This is an incredible example of what it looks like to center [these] communities,” said Feby Boediarto, energy justice manager of the statewide grassroots coalition California Environmental Justice Alliance. ​“It’s extremely important to think about the long-term vision of electrification for all homes, especially those who’ve been heavily burdened by pollution. And these initiatives are stepping stones to that vision.” California’s initiatives, developed by the commission’s California Market Transformation Administrator (CalMTA) program, are multipronged. They take aim at the whole supply chain, from tech development to distribution to consumer education, said Lynette Curthoys, who leads CalMTA. The initial investment by the world’s fourth-largest economy is expected to deliver about $1 billion in benefits, including avoided electric and gas infrastructure costs, through 2045. One major goal is to bring the price tag of battery-powered induction stoves way down. Current products from startups Copper and Impulse start at about $6,000 and $7,000, respectively — far more than top-rated gas ranges, which customers can snag for less than $1,000. As for the heat-pump plan, an essential element will be encouraging manufacturers to develop products for the California market in particular. One quirk they have to deal with is that windows in the Golden State commonly slide open from side to side or by swinging outward. The most efficient window-unit heat pumps available on the market today, by contrast, are designed to fit windows that open up and down. To spark better-suited designs, the state intends to create competitions for manufacturers — a strategy that’s worked before. In 2021, the New York City Housing Authority, along with the New York Power Authority and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, issued the Clean Heat for All Challenge. The competition pushed manufacturers to produce a window heat pump that could handle the region’s chilly winters, with a promise to purchase 24,000 units for public housing. San Francisco-based startup Gradient and Guangdong, China-based manufacturer Midea made the requisite technological leaps for New York. The state later bumped up its heat-pump order to 30,000 units.

Energy
Education
Pollution

Staying on Costa Rica’s Best Beach: The awā Beachfront Hotel Experience in Punta Uva

Every traveler, no matter how many places they’ve visited, is always hoping to be surprised again — especially those returning to Costa Rica with a clearer, more refined sense of what they’re looking for. With two coastlines and countless remarkable beaches, finding one that truly stands out is not always easy. Yet Punta Uva, in […] The post Staying on Costa Rica’s Best Beach: The awā Beachfront Hotel Experience in Punta Uva appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Every traveler, no matter how many places they’ve visited, is always hoping to be surprised again — especially those returning to Costa Rica with a clearer, more refined sense of what they’re looking for. With two coastlines and countless remarkable beaches, finding one that truly stands out is not always easy. Yet Punta Uva, in the Southern Caribbean, manages to do exactly that. Its calm, reef-protected waters and preserved natural setting have earned it international recognition, including a spot on The World’s 50 Best Beaches by worlds50beaches.com, where it ranks number 6 in Latin America and is celebrated as Costa Rica’s top beach. Much of Punta Uva’s appeal comes from the region’s conscious approach to development. The Southern Caribbean has embraced sustainability and community involvement for decades, prioritizing low-density tourism and environmental stewardship over rapid expansion. This long-term commitment is one of the reasons why Punta Uva Costa Rica has become an emblem of the quiet, nature-centered experiences so many travelers look for today. On this protected stretch of coastline sits awā Beachfront Hotel Punta Uva, offering one of the most direct and refined ways to experience the best beach in Costa Rica. As the only hotel with a dedicated beachfront club positioned directly on the shoreline, awā gives guests immediate access to Punta Uva while maintaining a peaceful, private atmosphere within its grounds. For travelers considering where to stay in Punta Uva, awā offers a rare blend of comfort, design, and closeness to nature. At the heart of this vision is the hotel’s guiding philosophy — Crafted by Nature — a concept that reflects a deeper intention behind every detail. Rather than dominating the landscape, each element is shaped to echo it. From the use of local materials to the flow of open-air spaces, awā is designed to let nature lead. The result is a hotel experience that feels intuitive, grounded, and organically connected to its surroundings. This sense of intentional simplicity carries into the hotel’s spaces as well. Designed as an adults-only boutique retreat, awā features 11 suites shaped around calm, privacy, and connection to the environment. The aesthetic is understated and refined, using natural tones, soft lines, and local materials that echo the surrounding landscape. Ocean-view suites frame the Caribbean Sea, garden-view spaces immerse guests in greenery, and select suites include private pools or bathtubs—ideal options for travelers seeking a deeper sense of relaxation. This integration between design, comfort, and the surrounding landscape is what ultimately defines the experience at awā. The suites offer guests a distinct perspective of Punta Uva, creating a connection to the environment that feels both intimate and elevated—a warm, carefully considered contrast to the more traditional stays found in the region. Its privileged beachfront setting provides uninterrupted views of Punta Uva’s unspoiled coastline — the sea, the forest canopy, and the soft shifts in light from sunrise to afternoon. Rather than imposing itself on nature, awā uses well-crafted design and subtle details to keep the landscape at the center of the experience. The result is a grounded, meaningful form of comfort that resonates with travelers who see the environment as the true highlight of their visit. At the same time, awā offers easy access to the wider Southern Caribbean for travelers who want to explore beyond the beach. Playa Chiquita, Cocles, and Manzanillo are all nearby, each offering its own character. Guests can snorkel, kayak, paddleboard, walk through forest trails, or enjoy the cultural and culinary energy of nearby Puerto Viejo. Whether travelers want activity or stillness, the hotel’s location provides flexibility without sacrificing tranquility. Ultimately, awā Beachfront Hotel Punta Uva provides a stay anchored in one of Costa Rica’s most extraordinary natural settings — preserved through careful development and shaped by the quiet rhythm of the Caribbean. For visitors hoping to rediscover the region or experience it from a more intimate perspective, awā delivers a meaningful, beautifully integrated place to stay. In a country known for its exceptional coastlines, Punta Uva stands apart. And staying at awā Beachfront Hotel Punta Uva offers travelers the rare chance not just to visit Costa Rica’s best beach, but to experience it fully — from the first light of the morning to the last colors of the day. The post Staying on Costa Rica’s Best Beach: The awā Beachfront Hotel Experience in Punta Uva appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Energy
Forests
Nature

Private equity firm to buy Zenith Energy, Portland’s controversial fuel terminal

Miami-based I Squared Capital, specializing in global infrastructure investments, said it plans to complete the transition from fossil fuel storage to renewable fuels by October 2027.

A Miami-based private equity firm announced Tuesday that it’s set to acquire the Zenith Energy fuel terminal on the Willamette River in Northwest Portland. I Squared Capital, specializing in global infrastructure investments, has entered into a legally binding contract to purchase 100% of the Portland terminal, the company announced.I Squared manages $50 billion in assets in over 70 countries, including natural gas companies, solar, wind and battery storage facilities and fiber-optic networks.Company officials did not say how much the firm plans to pay for the Portland terminal. Both I Squared and Zenith are privately held, so neither company must disclose the transaction’s financial terms to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The transaction is expected to close within the next few months.I Squared said it will abide by the terminal’s current obligations, including the transition from crude oil and other fossil fuel storage to renewable fuels by October 2027 – in line with Zenith’s pledge to the city and state regulators. Renewable fuels include biodiesel, renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel. “We see significant opportunity for the Portland facility,” Gautam Bhandari, the firm’s global chief investment officer and managing partner, said in a press release. “We believe the terminal is uniquely positioned to become one of the West Coast’s leading renewable fuel hubs, supported by strong structural demand for low-carbon fuels and a broad shift toward sustainable transportation solutions.”The firm also said the terminal is “essential to helping Portland and the State of Oregon meet their clean fuel policy goals,” echoing statements made in recent months by Zenith officials. In recent years, Portland has adopted a policy to transition to renewable fuels, also known as biofuels, to reach greenhouse gas emission reduction mandates and improve air quality. City officials have said they are still committed to electrification of cars and trucks but it will take decades. Zenith’s acquisition comes in the wake of a major regulatory win for the fuel terminal, which stores fuels and loads them onto barges, trucks and rail cars. In October, Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality approved Zenith’s new air quality permit, securing its continued operations on the river. Under the permit, Zenith is required to fully transition to renewables within two years. The approval came despite years of fierce opposition from environmental groups and some residents worried about Zenith’s history of violations and the earthquake-related safety risks at the Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub, where Zenith is one of 11 companies with fuel terminals and the only one still storing crude oil. The Houston-based Zenith purchased the Portland terminal – a former asphalt refinery – in 2017 from Arc Logistics. Within a few months, long trains from Canada and North Dakota began bringing large amounts of tar sands oil to store at the terminal, surprising regulators and incensing local activists. Zenith has been shifting from crude oil to renewable fuels in recent years. By the end of 2024, the company reported that 66% of its contracted storage capacity was dedicated to renewable fuels. A previous analysis by The Oregonian found that Zenith’s new air quality permit is likely to pave the way for the company to significantly expand the amount of liquid fuel it stores at the Portland terminal because renewable fuels produce less pollution, allowing the company to store more of them without going over the permit limits. DEQ’s spokesperson Michael Loch said a change in ownership does not change the requirements of the air quality permit. “The permit applies to the facility and its operations, and any new owner would be responsible for complying with all permit conditions,” Loch said.A permit modification may be required if the new owner proposes changes to operations or the facility name, said Loch, but the DEQ has not received any such requests at this time. It’s likely the terminal’s name will change because Zenith Energy will continue to own other terminals across the U.S. Opponents said they will continue to oppose the terminal and its expansion. “No matter who owns this facility, Portlanders will continue to fight the expansion of dangerous liquid fuel storage on this site,” said Nick Caleb, an attorney with the Breach Collective, a statewide climate justice advocacy organization that has opposed Zenith for years.At the collective’s urging, Portland is still investigating whether Zenith violated its franchise agreement by installing and using new pipes at an additional dock without reporting it. City officials expect to conclude the investigation by year’s end. Environmental groups also have challenged the city’s land-use approval for Zenith before the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. In November, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the board’s initial decision concerning Portland’s Zenith approval, sending the case back to the board for a full review.

Energy
Activism
Land Use

Biomass is a money pit that won’t solve California’s energy or wildfire problems

Utilities customers help pay for biomass because electric utilities buy its products to produce electricity, paying four times more. Is it worth it?

Guest Commentary written by Shaye Wolf Shaye Wolf is the climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. California’s most expensive electricity source is finally poised to lose a government handout that props up its high costs and harmful pollution. In an era of clean, cheap solar and wind energy, policymakers are rightly beginning to treat biomass energy like the boondoggle it is.  Biomass energy — electricity made by burning or gasifying trees — is an expensive, dirty relic that relies on industry misinformation and taxpayer money.  In a vote later this month, the California Public Utilities Commission is expected to end the BioMAT subsidy program, which requires electric utilities to buy biomass power at exorbitant costs — four times the average. Californians get hit with those extra costs in our power bills, along with pollution that harms our health and climate.  Utilities and environmental groups support ending this costly subsidy.  But the biomass industry is fighting back with misleading claims that its projects are made clean by “new” technology or that they’re needed for wildfire safety. Don’t be fooled. Burning trees to make electricity harms the climate. In fact, biomass power is more climate-polluting at the smokestack than coal. Biomass energy releases toxic air pollutants that endanger health, increasing the risk of premature death and illnesses like asthma. The facilities often are located in low-income communities and communities of color that have long fought to shut them down.   It is telling that the biomass industry is rebranding. It claims it will use “clean” methods to gasify trees instead of burning them. But gasification — which also involves heating organic material — releases large amounts of climate-harming air pollution.  State regulators in May denied a costly biomass gasification project that couldn’t show it would reduce emissions as promised.   The industry also promotes carbon capture and storage, claiming this technology will suck up carbon dioxide from biomass smokestacks and store it underground forever. But carbon capture and storage is a costly, decades-old technology with a long history of failure and serious health and safety risks. Finally, the industry claims biomass energy projects will help pay for forest thinning, which it says will protect communities during wildfires. That means cutting trees, often large trees, which threatens wildlife and destroys forests, which naturally store carbon and fight climate change. Thinning isn’t a good way to keep communities safe. Most of the community destruction is caused by wind-driven fires during extreme fire weather, made worse by climate change. The fastest-moving 3% of wind-driven fires is responsible for 88% of the damage to homes.  No amount of forest thinning can stop that. In fact, thinning makes cool, moist forests hotter, drier and more wind-prone, which can make fires burn faster and more intensely. Most of California’s destructive wildfires — like the Los Angeles area fires in January — have burned in shrublands and grasslands, not forests, making thinning irrelevant in those cases. A better way to prevent fires Instead, the best investment for protecting communities during wildfires is hardening homes, so they’re less likely to catch fire, and stopping new development in fire-prone areas. Yet the state has earmarked only 1% of its wildfire funding for home hardening. Most goes to thinning.  Where thinning occurs, it’s most cost-effective to scatter the wood in the forest to create wildlife habitat, retain vital nutrients, and enhance natural carbon storage. If wood must be removed, it can be turned into mulch and shavings. The worst choice is subsidizing biomass companies to make dirty energy. Any way you look at it, biomass energy is a polluting money pit that won’t solve our climate or wildfire safety problems. California already has the affordable solutions we need: Clean, cheap solar and wind energy and energy storage to power our state, and home hardening to protect communities from wildfire while growing local economies.  California’s leaders need to embrace these proven solutions and get us out of the expensive, dangerous biomass business.

Energy
Business
CO2

Suggested Viewing

In Pursuit of Passive

Follows the construction of the first net-zero, passive house built in the Greater Tetons-Yellowstone region near Jackson, WY, while explaining the Passive House building approach for designing and constructing more sustainable buildings and exploring the many associated climate and energy performance benefits. Features the home’s designers – Lindsey Love and Lindsay Schack, co-founders of a sustainable architecture and design firm based out of Bozeman, MT and Driggs, ID – along with building and climate experts.

Energy
Solutions
Climate

CHAO CARBÓN DOCUMENTARY

Mr. Aes Gener is a greedy mega-entrepreneur in the energy business. Through his story we get into the dirty business he has done in Chile and the world with coal, while we see, through archival footage, the damage to people and nature of this obsolete and polluting fossil fuel.

Energy
Pollution
Activism

100 Short Stories

100 Short Stories is a collage ranging from the serious to the humorous. This original and engaging documentary tackles opinions regarding governance, public policy, and questions what are sound ideas socially, environmentally and culturally in today’s society. It’s about predatory Capitalism, renewable energy, stopping the frakers, and contemporary life in Atlantic Canada. Created by Neal Livingston, a well-known Nova Scotian documentary filmmaker and artist – as well as renewable energy practitioner, developer and policy advocate – who calls the film partly autobiographical.

Culture
Energy
Documentary

THE SPRAYER

In the land occupied with the sprayers army, no one has the right to grow any kind of plants either in public or private. So many of the people and soldiers do not even know how a plant grows or looks like, until one day one of the soldiers finds a seed buried deep down in the dust and his curiosity is just the beginning of something extraordinary, something big, something revolutionary.

Plants
CO2
Animation

Total Disaster

Armed with realistic bird puppets, trickster environmental activists pretend to be oil company Total—staging a satirical press conference to introduce "RéHabitat," a program to rescue animals from the East African Oil Pipeline by relocating them to “more sustainable” habitats. Using humor and mischief, they expose a deadly ecological disaster in a zany effort to help #StopEACOP.

Activism
Energy
Animals

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.